--On Saturday, January 25, 2014 16:41 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It's quite obvious from reading this thread that the IAOC needs
> to revert to the previous Note Well text right now, until the
> wording issue is resolved.
>
> It is apparent to me though that the BCP *requires* disclosure
> as a condition of participation, regardless of employment
> agreements, and always has done. That's why there has always
> been tolerance extended to allow corporate IPR departments to
> have time to prepare and make disclosures at lawyerly speed.
> Nothing new here except the more brutal wording.
Agreed. Noting that the likely effect of "regardless of
employment agreements" if there really is a conflict in a
particular company-participant relations is "don't participate
in that" under the BCP and "don't attend" if the wording is more
brutal, we should have a lot of incentive to clean the language
up... and go back to the tested language until a cleaned-up
version is ready.
john